The lawsuit involving Crystal Hansen was a federal civil rights case filed in 2024 by a Minnesota inmate who challenged a prison policy banning prayer oil in cells. Hansen, a correctional captain at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Moose Lake, was one of five Department of Corrections employees named as defendants. A federal judge dismissed the case on August 8, 2025.1GovInfo. Hughes v. Rish et al., 24-cv-4564 Order Accepting Report and Recommendation
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Tederian Charles Hughes, an inmate at Moose Lake, filed the pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption Hughes v. Rish et al., Case No. 24-cv-4564. Hughes alleged that Minnesota Department of Corrections Policy 302.300, which bars inmates from possessing prayer oil in their individual cells, violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He wrote that he was not seeking money, saying there was no value he could place on practicing his religious faith.2GovInfo. Hughes v. Rish et al., 24-cv-4564 Report and Recommendation
Why Hansen Was Named
The complaint listed Hansen by her job title at Moose Lake, “Captain – Religious Programming.” The four other defendants were Warden Kris Rish, Chaplain Joel Smith, Lieutenant John Swenson, and Grievance Coordinator Chantel Wolak. The court noted that the complaint provided no description of how Hansen or any other defendant was personally involved in enforcing the challenged policy. Job titles were the only information the complaint offered about any of them.2GovInfo. Hughes v. Rish et al., 24-cv-4564 Report and Recommendation
Public salary records show Hansen has worked for the Minnesota Department of Corrections since at least 2020, serving as a Correctional Program Director from 2020 to 2021 before her promotion to Correctional Captain, a position she held from 2022 through 2025.3GovSalaries. Hansen Crystal D, Minnesota Department of Corrections
Why the Case Was Dismissed
The defendants moved to dismiss. On June 2, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be granted. He found that the complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards under Rule 8, did not adequately explain how any named defendant was personally involved in the alleged violations, and did not show that the prison policy placed a “substantial burden” on the plaintiff’s religious exercise as required under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.2GovInfo. Hughes v. Rish et al., 24-cv-4564 Report and Recommendation
On August 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion, and dismissed the case without prejudice.1GovInfo. Hughes v. Rish et al., 24-cv-4564 Order Accepting Report and Recommendation
Where the Case Stands
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Hughes was technically free to refile with a more detailed complaint. As of the last docket update in October 2025, no new filings or appeals had been recorded.4PACER Monitor. Hughes v. Rish et al., Case Docket